DCS World's WWII Accessibility

[shadepiece]

Hello all,

 

This is my first post here on these forums, and I hope to bring a few points to the table for discussion. Many of these points have been covered before, but none of those threads seem to be active anymore, and I'd like to have a new discussion given that we are on the verge of 1.5.

 

Let me start by saying that my experience in flight sims might be somewhat less extensive than some of you, but it has been a hobby of mine since I was very little. My Dad bought me Jane's '97 back in the day, soon followed by Jane's WWII Fighters. However, it wasn't until recently that I began to get back in to sims, and I started again more recently getting back into them with a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. I have a set of MFG Crosswinds on order, and just this week I received my Track IR 5. Also, planning on upgrading to a TM Warthog HOTAS in the coming weeks. I tell you this to ensure you understand that I am serious about this hobby, and I'm not inexperienced in these matters.

 

The discussion I want to have is one of accessibility to DCS from someone who is interested solely in the WWII aircraft. I have logged some flight time in the TF-51, albeit mostly just taking off and landing, but I have not yet baught any of the DCS modules. Some of the reasons I have for not doing so are, price barrier to entry, no gun convergence adjustability, lack of understanding for the damage model, few aircraft/scenarios possible to experience in DCS World, and finally a very small player base for WWII DCS servers. This list of things are what has kept me from buying into DCS so far, and I suspect it is also possible why many other sim pilots have not taken the dive.

 

My goal is to have a discussion on some of these you, in a mature, and civilized manner, and see if we could boil down these points, and possibly make DCS look more inviting to the more average sim flyer.

 

My thoughts on the above mentioned points,

 

-Price is not an issue if one waits for a sale,or is more informed about what exactly they receive with the purchase, and what can be done in game.

 

-Gun convergence is a big issue to me. I prefer to get in very, very close to fire, and therefore I like my convergence much shorter than some. I know this has been covered before, but I'd like to put my two cents in, and say that this is something that definitely turns me off of DCS, and I think the easiest, and most acceptable remedy would be to add multiple, historically correct, presents to choose in the mission Editor.

 

-The damage model is something of a mystery to someone who has not played in DCS World, and would like some general clarification, and I think many others that are on the fence would as well.

 

-Obviously this will come in time. This is an issue that i believe will ve solved once the Spit and Thunderbolt are out. However, some other period aircraft that are flyable by AI would be a great addition.

 

-The lack of player base is what we are here to hopefully solve by additional information, and possibly some slight coaxing.

 

These are my basic points, and I will elaborate on any one of them should it be desired. I hope, not only for myself, but for many people on the fence about getting into DCS, we can make the WWII portion of DCS more appealing. Thank you for your time. And feedback.

 

-shadepiece

[sobek]

add multiple, historically correct, presents to choose in the mission Editor.

 

The crux is, most if not all planes in the game are set to their historically correct harmonisation pattern. There really isn't anything to choose from.

 

That aside, the gun harmonisation can be altered by tinkering with a configuration file. You might however be not that fond of the results.

 

-The damage model is something of a mystery to someone who has not played in DCS World, and would like some general clarification, and I think many others that are on the fence would as well.

 

When you say you need clarification, it would be helpful to pose some sort of question. Would you know how to help me if i said: "The world confuses me, please give me some clarification". ;)

[shadepiece]

So I feel like the argument has been made proving that pilots could alter their convergences to different preset during the war. If you want those sources you can talk to Solty (hopefully he doesn't mind the name drop). If you can alter the convergence in the .lua files I don't think it would be to much to ask for a much simpler section in the mission editor to change your convergence.

 

As for the damage model the questions I have mostly revolve around the AI damage model. Why is it that some people believe that the DM for AI planes is bad. From the sounds of things the AI are unphased by damage until it it critical enough to destroy the aircraft outright. Even heard some peoples opinion the the DM acts much like a health bar being depleted on certain modules in the aircraft. I don't think that view is correct, but I am wondering how the game's engine produces projectiles, and track their effect on other aircraft. I would love some explanation on how this is computed. Do things like gravity, velocity, angle of impact have a big influence on the effectiveness on the damage output.

[dooom]

Great to see another prop head interested in dcs. My advice to you is to take a position of accomodation in the near term while the prop strategy develops. I would hate to see anyone miss out on the joy of flying a dcs sim level prop because they are waiting for "more" of something. I also miss the ability to leverage custom convergences but must admit that the sheer pleasure of flying with friends far outweighs perceived shortfalls on certain features. I have come to approach my hobby within dcs as one of " fun first and happy to be surprised later". It's kind of the philosophy we employ at the dogs of war while geek out of the fidelity of click pits and marvel at the opportunities gained/lost that simple pilot error can introduce in a sim at this level.

 

That said, I agree, that future presets for convergence would be great! I am not aware of any indicators such features are being explored yet - still having a great time in The interim though.

 

Yup - damage model is a mystery to me to but our group has figured out quite a few things that work consistently and there are still some really fun surprises that pop in. Last night I flew a 190 and choked the engine out in a hammerhead - it was sputtering on/ off for a while before it gave up the ghost... Was somethin in the electronics damaged ? Dunno to be honest but I love that I am still surprised by so many " little unknowns" .. The German planes in particular require some serious vigilance to court their temperaments home. - feel free to hook up with us at Dow and have a good time !

 

Player base is an interesting challenge. I am of the opinion that far too many have foregone a supremely amazing experience in dcs by acquiescing to some perceived barrier to there enjoyment. Be it visibility, map, period units, lack of "x" or "y"... Suspension of disbelief is something we apply in almost any other entertainment we pursue .... and it's a shame folks are missing out of some really amazing aircraft and experiencing a new benchmark in sim fidelity.

 

Many of the folks who fly on our server have overcome our personal barriers and are having a Really. Good. Time while we wait for things to get even more interesting. Nothing but blue skies ahead among our group :) come stop by and hopefully we can show you a few thing that have kept us excited . I say don't sit on a fence for $10 sale price - if you love props and high fidelity sims, that $10 will pay itself back over & over & over & over &.....

Edited September 19, 2015 by dooom
Darn iPad spelling

[sobek]

If you can alter the convergence in the .lua files I don't think it would be to much to ask for a much simpler section in the mission editor to change your convergence.

 

Well i feel you have a somewhat simplistic approach to the matter, because it's not as simple as providing a slider that you can set a range with. If one wants to do it proper, it is a highly complex task that involves otptimisation along a greater range of parameters.

 

Sure ED could provide you with the guns converging to a given pattern at a given distance and let that be scalable in range, that would be trivial. However it would neither be combat effective nor historically accurate.

[dooom]

I just noticed the sentences in your sig shadepeice.... I would argue that this has never been more true than in DCS

[shadepiece]

Dooom thank you very much for your reply! This is the sort of thing I, and many other people are looking for. A little convincing goes a long way. I am extremely tempted to get one of the aircraft, but honestly I'm too torn haha! I am by nature a huge mustang fan. A little boys dream right there however, over time I've tended to realize that the German fighters clearly fit my preferred flight style. I was tempted to drop a lot during the previous flash sale on the ED's website, but I am very much bound to Steam. Since steam keys work with the standalone, but not the other way around I have made up my mind I'll buy on the steam store for now.

 

Sobek respectfully I disagree completely. As I said sources have been provided that changing the convergence was something that was in some way commonplace. To the extent that I, and many other think should be added. As I said I am thinking of a few persets to be determined, and allowed to be switched for preference. There were, if I have understood correctly, many possible adjustments that could be made for the P-51D's convergence range. I do NOT want, as you say a slider. I am not asking for some unreasonable convergence settings. Even the K-14 gunsight can be ranged all the way down to 600ft. Not to mention that I have no way of understanding how my personal preference in convergence affects you in any way. You could keep yours where it is, and I could change mine, and that would be fine for both of us. I cannot understand how, as I have seen some put it, a "game-breaking" feature. So again, as I've said before, it would, without a doubt, be historically accurate, and what I find combat effective is no doubt different than what you might find is. Shooter preference is an important part of being combat effective. Also, my approach to this matter is anything but simplistic. I understand that gun convergence is determined by many factors, and variables, and as much as I'd absolutely love to experiment and find the exact settings that would work best for me, I do not expect others to do the same amount of painstaking experimentation, which is why I would prefer a choice of a few presets over a slider.

Edited September 19, 2015 by shadepiece

[USA_Recon]

Hello all,

 

 

-The damage model is something of a mystery to someone who has not played in DCS World, and would like some general clarification, and I think many others that are on the fence would as well.

 

-shadepiece

 

from my understanding, unlike Cliffs of Dover - which has a very good damage model - that DCS doesn't have a very good damage model. It lacks taking out controls and relies on a point system.

 

This is one area that DCS really needs to update.

 

The only issue is that although they make these WW2 planes, they really lack in WW2 content - which is probably why DCS isn't as popular as it could be.

[sobek]

It lacks taking out controls and relies on a point system.

 

If we are talking about the player plane, that's not quite correct. All control surfaces can be damaged or taken out. The visual representation might be somewhat lacking, but the model underneath is better than its reputation.

[shadepiece]

from my understanding, unlike Cliffs of Dover - which has a very good damage model - that DCS doesn't have a very good damage model. It lacks taking out controls and relies on a point system.

 

This is one area that DCS really needs to update.

 

The only issue is that although they make these WW2 planes, they really lack in WW2 content - which is probably why DCS isn't as popular as it could be.

 

This seems to be consistently what I hear about the damage model in DCS. I don't remember exactly where I read it, but it was explained to me that originally the damage model was made to be a type of point system. This was mostly due to the fact that DCS is primarily a modern aircraft simulator where the majority of the damage is done via missiles and in one lump sum of aircraft destroying explosion! However, that would explain why it was not as in depth as say, CloD. I think this is being reworked already, but it be nice if wags brought up some of these WWII related concerns, and address him in the update videos. I honestly believe that this will be updated, but it's something currently diswaying many a prop head.

 

Edit: Sobek, this is what I thought, but I think the confusion comes in the way that the AI damage model seems to not be reactive to any damage. Now that has been explained to me as the AI is programed to be able to fly their planes as energy efficient as possible regardless of the damage. So the damage is done, but it's not apparent for the player's point of view.

Edited September 19, 2015 by shadepiece

[sobek]

This seems to be consistently what I hear about the damage model in DCS. I don't remember exactly where I read it, but it was explained to me that originally the damage model was made to be a type of point system.

 

I don't know where you heard this but it is only really true about the ground vehicles.

[fastfreddie]

To be honest ... don't worry about what others have complained about until you try it yourself. Your talking about dropping 1G on joysticks, rudders, and track ir so price of modules should be a great bargain especially on sale. New craft generally come out over several months so it doesn't hurt that bad.

 

Complaints about the damage model are mostly on the AI end and players too used to the DM in other sims. I watched a documentary on a Kamikaze pilot that was in a 35 minute dogfight in a zero with 3 F4Us. He survived and had 78 bullet holes in his plane so some of the complaints aren't always rational. Yes the Ai DM is different from the player version but they are very easy to shoot. If you don't hit a critical area in a players plane it doesn't matter in the overall scheme but they said they will be looking at improving it.

 

The only people that generally complain about the convergence are the Mustang flyers since the German planes have a different setup. The Mustang is the easiest so far in terms of gunnery with its great sight and I doubt you will have little trouble with practice.

 

Grab all three modules on the next sale because they all offer a different experience. We should have a large collection of WWII aircraft to fly in the next year with DCS 2.0 and it will take time to master each.

[Python]

I rarely play with the ww2 stuff, but I own them all, mostly purchased at full price and I would say they are worth every penny. Given how much you have spent on hardware, I'd say just go ahead and buy a few, or the p-51d at least which is my personal favourite. I'll defend dcs to the hilt but it is clear the ww2 side needs work. My biggest gripe has always been visibility, I find it awkward and down right annoying at times trying to spot aircraft, fortunately this issue is being fixed later in the month. This should see me putting the older aircraft to use much more often.

 

I agree on the damage model for AI aircraft which is my second biggest issue. It is a mystery at times, I've pumped lead into targets until they're smoking like the shady guy in the X files and they just shake it off like nothing is wrong. It would be nice to see this changed in future but I have no idea if it is a priority.

 

I do think the positives are very much there however and should be considered. It is possible to have plenty of fun with the combat side of things. And tell me where else you can fly such a realistic Mustang outside of being lucky enough to own a real example. WW2 combat might not be perfect in dcs just yet, but the actual aircraft are excellent and are worth every penny simply to learn how to operate them and have fun flying around for me. I don't like the 190 at all, but that's just me I'm sure. I'm very much looking forward to the Spitfire and p-47, as well as some proper campaigns with correct assets which will kick start dcs WW2 seriously I'm sure and lift it above any competition... Exactly where it should be.

[Crumpp]

sobek says:

Well i feel you have a somewhat simplistic approach to the matter, because it's not as simple as providing a slider that you can set a range with. If one wants to do it proper, it is a highly complex task that involves otptimisation along a greater range of parameters.

 

You have correctly stated the exact reason why there were standard boresighting procedures as well as zero and harmonization ranges.

 

 

 

shadepiece says:

Even the K-14 gunsight can be ranged all the way down to 600ft.

 

There is no convergence change. The convergence is still set a fixed distance.

[gavagai]

Yes the Ai DM is different from the player version but they are very easy to shoot.

 

The thing that gets me is that the AI flies so slow. It is often maneuvering at 200km/h while the player needs to maintain 300km/h to perform similar maneuvers. This bothers me much more than the wonky damage model because it makes flying against the AI a kind of a negative training.

[USA_Recon]

 

If you don't hit a critical area in a players plane it doesn't matter in the overall scheme but they said they will be looking at improving it.

 

 

Exactly - it should be that way but it's not - I think DCS damage model is way behind, i.e. Cliffs of Dover - and really hope it improves and is of higher priority

[shadepiece]

There is no convergence change. The convergence is still set a fixed distance.

 

Right I don't mean to imply that changing the range on the gunsight changes the convergence range, only that you could have a lower convergence range, and still have it work with the gunsight. However, that being said, I do not see myself using the gyro all that much due to the fact that I'm used to a static gunsight, which I think will be more effective for me.

[shadepiece]

I rarely play with the ww2 stuff, but I own them all, mostly purchased at full price and I would say they are worth every penny. Given how much you have spent on hardware, I'd say just go ahead and buy a few, or the p-51d at least which is my personal favourite. I'll defend dcs to the hilt but it is clear the ww2 side needs work. My biggest gripe has always been visibility, I find it awkward and down right annoying at times trying to spot aircraft, fortunately this issue is being fixed later in the month. This should see me putting the older aircraft to use much more often.

 

I agree on the damage model for AI aircraft which is my second biggest issue. It is a mystery at times, I've pumped lead into targets until they're smoking like the shady guy in the X files and they just shake it off like nothing is wrong. It would be nice to see this changed in future but I have no idea if it is a priority.

 

I do think the positives are very much there however and should be considered. It is possible to have plenty of fun with the combat side of things. And tell me where else you can fly such a realistic Mustang outside of being lucky enough to own a real example. WW2 combat might not be perfect in dcs just yet, but the actual aircraft are excellent and are worth every penny simply to learn how to operate them and have fun flying around for me. I don't like the 190 at all, but that's just me I'm sure. I'm very much looking forward to the Spitfire and p-47, as well as some proper campaigns with correct assets which will kick start dcs WW2 seriously I'm sure and lift it above any competition... Exactly where it should be.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. There is nothing close to DCS when it comes to accurately modeled aircraft, but I think the aforementioned issues are the exact ones keeping people away, but that's only half the problem. The biggest issue I see, and that I think other sim pilots see, is that there does not seem to be a clear line of communication with the devs on these issues. Obviously, the damage model is lacking in certain areas. Obviously the spotting is a issue (which will hopefully be solved with 1.5). Yet I have not heard much from the devs on these issues. I'm not demanding that the WWII aircraft be at the forefront of the priority for them, DCS is after all primarily a modern aircraft sim, but when many of the issues the WWII player base has are not being addressed, it can turn people away. Not permanently perhaps, but for the time being. people want to buy the whole product at once, not to pay and then have to wait for it to finished being developed.

 

Obviously there is plenty of content to warrant the price-tag already, which is why many of you have bought these modules even if you fly more of the modern stuff. I just think many people are holding out until they can get into something that's more fully developed. I believe the process of gaining a wider player base would be sped up if there was more communication from the top showing that the WWII player base is a priority, and that our thoughts and suggestions are being heard. This would make the whole community appear much more inviting. In a way, to me at least, it feels like us prop heads are getting the cold shoulder at the moment.

[Crumpp]

only that you could have a lower convergence range,

 

Look at the documents I posted. You cannot change the convergence range without changing the relationship of the weapon ballistics to the line of sight.

 

That is why the data is set up for using either a 1000 inch distance from the standard target to the boresight or a 500 yard firing range to boresight target for the USAAF.

 

One is done in the hanger to align the weapon ballistics to the gunsight and the other is performed on a 500 yard firing range to set the zero.

 

If you are not aligning the weapons to those specific parameters, then the relationship between point of aim and point of impact is changed to unknown parameters and will not hit the target as the sight is calibrated to perform.

 

He will be firing essentially blind with the exception of the single point he zeroed the sight in using his own invention.

 

That is not an effective way to fight. There is a good reason why the data is published and the aircraft weapons zero'd to a standard range.

 

To say that fighter pilots routinely changed this ballistic relationship based on a whim just is not reality.

 

Certainly, there were rare instances of those who felt their own ego superseded the physics and the data compiled by the weapon system engineers. Those instances were rare and despite local misconception.....not as effective as using the data the engineers provided to maximize the effectiveness of the weapon system.

 

In otherwords, not allowing players to adjust the convergence is much more realistic than some silly slider or custom zero. That is simply gamer fantasy. The sights are set to be most effective using standard data.

[arglmauf]

Think most people (myself included and I only recently started to understand the reason for the DCS convergence settings) are mislead by IL2 where modification of the convergence is standard practice (specifically CloD where you have control over all guns). When I started to try different convergence settings in CloD that allowed me to somewhat work with the crosshair at different distances (as to allow me more solutions than just one spot and also giving me more tolerance when my speed is greatly different than my target), I by trial and error slowly arrived at a convergence setup that started mimicking what we have in DCS here. Color me surprised. About the damage model: Here again, people might be confused by IL2 1946 and CloD. Loss of controls wasn't really that often, I would guess losing the whole control surfaces was more common than cable snap.

[QuiGon]

I just want to say, that thy're working on the WW2 enviroment. By that I mean maps (Normandy 1944) and ground units. That alone should make the whole WW2 flying in DCS way more attractive than it is now.

 

I own all the prop planes so far, but I don't fly them that much, simply because the modern Black Sea terrain and ground units don't fit WW2. When the Normandy map and corresponding ground units come out, I will fly those birds way more often than I do now. That should also help to populate the MP servers.

[Wolf Rider]

 

~ If you can alter the convergence in the .lua files I don't think it would be to much to ask for a much simpler section in the mission editor to change your convergence.

~

 

 

It depends on "how" that is gone about though... in earlier sims, it was quite possible set a convergence which totally unrealistic - "laser" cannons and "Umbrella" machine guns

 

It was just phenominal :)

[Solty]

Let me leave that little anegdotal evidence here.

[Crumpp]

Let me leave that little anegdotal evidence here.

 

There is no anecdotal evidence for "custom" convergence settings in this video.

 

He simply states some pilots went to the armorer to find out the convegerence settings for their aircraft.

 

He also states he never worried about it and never bothered to ask.

[Foul Ole Ron]

Also it's more likely that any fiddling around with harmonisation was something done on the earlier Mustang models before the gyro gun sight was introduced. Leaving the harmonisation pattern as standard with the GGS must have been the norm for virtually all pilots. It just worked best that way and crew chiefs probably had better things to do than working out custom patterns and all the work that entails to suit one guy's preference.